Comparative Negligence

What You Need to Know

Most states follow some form of comparative negligence, either "pure" comparative negligence (the plaintiff can recover even if they're 99% at fault) or "modified" comparative negligence (the plaintiff can only recover if they're less than 50% or 51% at fault). For example, if a customer slips and falls in your restaurant and the court determines your restaurant was 70% at fault and the customer was 30% at fault, the customer could only recover 70% of their total damages.

Common comparative negligence scenarios in restaurants:

• Slip-and-fall claims where the customer ignored wet floor signs or wore inappropriate footwear
• Trip-and-fall incidents where the customer failed to watch where they were walking
• Alcohol-related injuries where the customer misrepresented their sobriety
• Food allergy reactions where the customer failed to disclose an allergy or ignored menu warnings
• Burn injuries where the customer reached over hot plates after being warned

Why It Matters for Restaurant Owners

Comparative negligence allows you to argue that a customer's own careless behavior contributed to their injury, which can significantly reduce what you have to pay in a settlement or judgment — but only if you can prove it.

Documentation that supports a shared-fault defense:

• Photos of warning signs, hazard markers, and caution tape visible in the incident area
• Witness statements from employees and customers who saw the plaintiff's behavior
• Video surveillance footage showing the plaintiff's actions and attention level
• Detailed incident reports documenting conditions, warnings given, and the plaintiff's own statements

Without proper documentation, a wet-floor-sign defense becomes your word against the plaintiff's, and juries tend to favor injured plaintiffs over businesses absent solid proof of shared fault.